Case law

Phœnix Mutual Fire Ins. v. Bowersox

6 Ohio C.C. 1 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jun 15, 1891

Upon cross-examination he would not undertake to say which member of the board fixed the value of the land at $1,000. … V. Instructions asked by the defendant and refused by the court.

Quigley v. State

5 Ohio C.C. 638 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1891

The same principle, as we understand it, is recognized in two other cases, among others in the case of Prescott v. The State, 19 Ohio St. 184 , and in The Cincinnati House of Refuge v. … As was said in Prescott v.

O'Brien v. State

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 33 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1908

Each of the four, or at least some of them, had a piece of gas pipe about eighteen inches long and one inch in diameter, covered with heavy brown paper. … The question then arises, is the evidence sufficient to show, under the law as laid down in State v.

State v. Russell

11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 299 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 27, 1900

section hereof to file a statement or statements until such statement or statements shall have been so made, verified and filed by such person with such board, officer or officers. … This is the rule laid down in State v. Sinks, 42 Ohio St., 345 .

City of Newark v. Jones

16 Ohio C.C. 563 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Mar 15, 1898

McDowell v. the City of Newark,” which had its foundation on the same facts as the one here presented, was passed upon by this court, and the judgment of the court below was sustained adversely to the claim of the plaintiff … Held: That the commissioners cannot maintain an action to recover damages for such alleged injury-” The court, after stating the doctrine that boards of county commissioners have such powers and such only as -are conferred

Leonard v. Cassidy

8 Ohio C.C. 529 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1894

This section does not execute itself by conferring the power of eminent domain upon the commissioners or any similar board. … Lamb et al. v. Lane, 4 Ohio St. 167 ; Giesy v. The Railroad Co., 4 Ohio St. 308 ; Shaver v. Starrett, 4 Ohio St. 495 ; Ferris et al. v. Bramble et al., 5 Ohio St. 109 .

Groff v. Hertenstein

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 633 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 29, 1910

The plaintiff in error in his petition claimed that the defendant, in error had placed his son in his school for one year and had agreed to pay to him for tuition and board for that year $1,200; that of this, amount $600 … Marvel v. Phillips, 162 Mass. 399 [38 N. E. Rep. 1117; 26 L. R. A. 416; 44 Am. St. Rep. 370 ]; Stewart v. Loring, 87 Mass. 306 [ 81 Am. Dec. 747 ].

Zurhorst v. Kroll

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 696 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1907

This distinction is clearly drawn by the supreme court of Texas, in Brown v. Mortgage Co. 80 S. W. … It is recognized with equal clearness and supported by exhaustive reasoning in the able case of Van Horn v. Van Horn, 56 N. J. Law 318 [ 28 Atl.

Ampt v. City of Cincinnati

12 Ohio C.C. 119 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1896

The works are to be built for said cities by a Board of Commissioners appointed by the Governor of the State. … Attorney General v. Baker, 35 Bull., 381; Hayes & Sons v. The City of Cleveland; Seifert et al. v. Weidner et al., and others, found in 35 Bull., 399.

Toledo Street Railway Co. v. Mammet

13 Ohio C.C. 591 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

Now, the supreme court have several times passed upon that question, and upon this same question in the case of Railway Co. v. … He paid for his board — not exactly for his board, but contributed to the support of the family, to the extent of $10 every two weeks in one season of the year, and more in other seasons.

Whitten v. State

21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 398 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 4, 1909

Hanson v. State 43 Ohio St. 376 , 378 [1 N. E. Rep. 136]; Howard v. State, 25 Ohio St. 399 , 401. … In the case of Brown v. State, 25 O. C. C. 130 (2 N. S. 409), it was decided that pocket picking is included in a charge of robbery, basing both offenses upon larceny as the foundation.

State ex rel. Ferencz v. Unida Gold Mining Co.

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 60 · Ohio Circuit Courts · May 9, 1910

Tillson v. Putnam, Co. (Comrs.) 19 Ohio 415 . As stated By Judge Shauck in the case of Fraternal Mystic Circle v. State, 61 Ohio St. 628 [48 N. E. Rep. 940; 76 Am. St. … This view is elucidated in the case of Madden v. Light Co. 181 Pa. St. 617 [ 37 Atl. Rep. 817 ; 38 L. R. A. 638]. In the case of North State Copper & Gold Co. v. Field, 64 Md. 151 [ 20 Atl.

Rousculp v. Ohio Southern Railroad

19 Ohio C.C. 436 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1899

, or boarding, on or for the railroad, file with the recorder of *442 the county where the labor was performed, or materials, or boarding furnished, an affidavit containing an itemized statement of the kind and amount of … Dunham v, Railway Co., 1 Wall., 254, 266 ; Railroad Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459, 481 ; U. S. v. New Orleans R. R., 12 Wall. 362 ; Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430, 440 ; Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235, 251 ; Myer v.

State ex rel. Archibald v. Trustees of Columbia Township

8 Ohio C.C. 691 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1894

We think further that the statute now under consideration, differs materially and substantially from that passed on by this court in what is known as the Mooney Avenue case — Kin ney v. DeMar et al., 8 C. … In the case at bar, the general assembly, the supreme legislative authority of the state, has seen proper to direct that one of the administrative boards subject to its control should perform certain duties.

Kennard House Co. v. Mathivet

19 Ohio C.C. 749 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

V. Mathivet on the one part, and R. E. Gill and others on the other part. This writing is set out in full in the record, and is there designated as exhibit “B.” … Now, the action of the paintiff in error, which it is claimed binds it to carry out the provisions of exhibit “B”, are shown in a resolution adopted by the board of directors of the plaintiff in error, in which it undertook

Schwartz v. State ex rel. Schwartz

19 Ohio C.C. 350 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1900

State ex rel. v. Stockley, 45 Ohio St., 804 . … There is nothing unfair or unjust to the majority in such a provision, because if they exercise the privilege granted, they will always have control of the board of directors, although the minority may, by a skillful distribution

O'Neil v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

2 Ohio C.C. 504 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Nov 15, 1887

. & P. 167; Cricket v. McManus, 8 East., which is an early leading case on the subject. 1 Wend. 273 . Attention is called to Little Miami R. R. Co. v. … Ib. s. p. 160; Shear. & Redf. on Negl. sec. 59, 62; Limpus v. London Gen’l Omnibus Co., 1 Hurl. & Colt. 541; Poulton v. London & S. W. R. R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 535.”

Queen City Telephone Co. v. Cincinnati

17 Ohio C.C. Dec. 385 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1905

S. 3461) is unconstitutional, but in Zanesville v. Telegraph & Tel. … The distinction between the legislative and the judicial powers of the state, is adhered to as strictly in Zanesville v. Telegraph & Tel. Co. supra, as in Zanesville v. Telephone & Tel.

Weber v. Miller

9 Ohio C.C. 674 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1893

And in support of this he cites the case of Nicholas v. Chamberlain, Cro. Jac. 121; and Pyer v. Carter, 40 E. L. and Eq. 410; although this latter case is impugned by Suffield v. Brown, 10 Jur. N. … Our own Supreme Court in the case of Shields v.

Village of Avondale v. Scudder

12 Ohio C.C. 770 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1893

That question, as was decided in the case of Wewell v. The City of Cincinnati, is a question of fact to be decided from the circumstances of each particular case. … And we are therefore of the opinion that within the definition, as given in the case of Wewell v.